Preamble

The House Met at Eleven of the Clock.

The House, being met, the Clerk at the Table (Sir Horace Dawkins) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this Day's sitting.

Whereupon, Sir Robert Young, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London Electric, Metropolitan District, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill.

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Southampton Corporation Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Scottish United Investors, Limited, Order Confirmation Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Chopping Wycombe) Bill.

Second Reading deferred until Monday next.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Liverpool (Waver-tree Division) in the room of John Abraham Tinne, Esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell.]

MAURITIUS LOAN [GUARANTEE].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That it is expedient—
(a) to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the payment of the principal of, and the interest on, a loan to be raised by the government of Mauritius not exceeding an amount sufficient to raise seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds, and to charge on the Consolidated Fund any moneys required to fulfil any such guarantee; and
(b) to authorise advances out of moneys provided by Parliament for the payment of such part, if any, of the annual charges in respect of the loan for any of the first five years of the currency thereof as, in the opinion of the Treasury and the Secretary of State, the government of Mauritius are not in a position to meet as and when those charges fall due." [King's Recommendation signified].—(Dr. Shiels.)

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): This week we have been considering domestic matters of great urgency and importance, but to-day I have to bring before hon. Members a subject, also important, affecting one of our oversea territories, in which, although it is not often mentioned in the House, we have a great concern. Mauritius has an interesting history, and is one of a number of examples in the Empire of a territory with non-British culture and traditions which has never failed to show its loyalty and its pride in being a component part of the British Empire. Its geographical position subjects it to severe natural visitations. On the 5th to the 8th of March this year Mauritius was visited by the most severe hurricane from which the island has suffered for a generation. Widespread damage to buildings and property and much immediate distress were caused. A large number of small dwellings was demolished, and several thousands of people were rendered homeless. While the damage to the larger buildings was generally less severe, a hospital was badly damaged and extensive injury was done to state buildings and plant. Roads and bridges also suffered severely from floods, and in addition a substantial proportion, estimated at 30 per cent., of the growing sugar crop was destroyed. This
loss was a serious blow, as the sugar crop is the mainstay of the island, sugar forming 98 per cent. of its exports.
Coming as this did at the end of a long period of depression in the sugar industry, during which the producers' reserves have been exhausted, and bearing in mind the shock to confidence it seemed probable that many of the owners of sugar factories would be unable to meet their hurricane losses and would have to close down. This would have meant destitution for the labourers and for the peasant proprietors, by whom a large proportion of the canes are grown. The financial position of the Mauritius Government is unfortunately such that the Government itself is not in a position to give any help to the planters and others who have suffered losses. The long-continued depression in the sugar industry, and the consequent remission of the export duty on sugar, have resulted in the exhaustion during the last five years of the Colony's surplus balance, built up with commendable foresight in the preceding period of prosperity in the industry. In the current financial year, ending on 30th June, there is a prospect of a substantial deficit. There will almost certainly be another deficit next year, and the Governor has indicated his opinion that these deficits cannot be avoided by any ordinary economies in expenditure or by increases in revenue.
In these circumstances, the Mauritius Government is not in a position to meet the cost of repairs and replacements of its own property damaged in the hurricane, or to render assistance to the general community. The actual immediate distress is being met from local funds, including a special relief fund established by the Roman Catholic Bishop and the Anglican Bishop designate. His Majesty's Government in Great Britain has made a free contribution of £5,000 to this fund. The Mauritius Government has also contributed. It is gratifying to notice in this connection the friendly relations between our own Colonies and the neighbouring French Colonies. On the occasion of a similar visitation to the Island of Madagascar the Government of Mauritius was able to render some assistance, and I am glad, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to express our gratitude for a very substantial contribution which the
Government of Madagascar has made to the Mauritius Belief Fund in connection with this recent disastrous visitation. This fund, however, will only meet immediate necessity, and for any real rehabilitation of the economic life of the Colony it is clear that funds must be raised by loan. Owing, as I have explained, to the present financial difficulties of the Mauritius Government, this can only be raised on reasonable terms with the assistance of the guarantee of His Majesty's Government.
Accordingly, as shown in the White Paper, copies of which are in the hands of hon. Members, this Financial Resolution is moved to enable a Bill to be introduced under which it is proposed to authorise the Treasury, subject to certain usual conditions, to guarantee a loan, not exceeding £750,000, to be raised by the Government of Mauritius. We are to guarantee the principal and the interest of the loan, which is to cover the cost of the following: First, the repair and the replacement of Government property damaged in the hurricane, £75,000 being allotted for this. That is the Governor's estimate of the cost of such repairs. Secondly, loans to private persons and companies up to the amount of the losses due to the hurricane by way of damage to property, stock, etc., and the loss of growing crops. The sum of £500,000 is to be allotted for this purpose as a maximum for loans to planters and others. This sum is less than the total loss suffered, but it is expected that some of the proprietors will not require to apply for advances to the full extent of their losses. Thirdly, public works which cannot be financed in any other way. The amount for this purpose is £175,000, and is to be reserved for public works in progress, or likely to be required, which the Colonial Government would have financed, but cannot now finance from its own resources. The conditions precedent to the guarantee to be incorporated in the Bill are set out in the White Paper, and they follow generally the established practice in Bills of this kind, the latest precedent being the Palestine and East African Loans Act, 1926.
In addition, the offer of assistance was subject to certain other conditions: First, the Colonial Government to con-
sent to an investigation of its financial position by a Financial Commission, to be appointed by His Majesty's Government, with a view to advising on measures to produce a balanced Budget at the earliest possible date. Secondly, in regard to loans to private persons and companies, the loans are to be for a period of years to be fixed according to the circumstances of each case, subject to a maximum, and to be constituted by first law charges on the properties involved, and to be reassessed with reference to the amount of hurricane damage and the borrower's own ability to pay the loan. This offer of assistance, with the conditions, has been gratefully accepted by the Colonial Government, and the Mauritius Council of Government have passed a resolution agreeing to the appointment of the proposed Financial Commission.
It is usual in measures of this nature for the guarantee to constitute the whole liability of the British Exchequer. In this case, however, there is a definite prospect that even with the adoption of the most stringent economy measures, which will certainly be undertaken, it may not be possible for the Colony to balance its Budget immediately, and accordingly Exchequer assistance may be required for the first few years to enable the Colony to provide for the service of the loan. It is accordingly proposed to provide in the Bill for this assistance to be given for a limited period—not exceeding five years—from moneys voted by Parliament. His Majesty's Government felt that it was the duty and privilege of the Mother Country to come to the aid of Mauritius in the present circumstances. The hurricane of March last was a natural disaster on a scale such that the damage caused, if left unrepaired, might, in the existing difficulties of the community and the Government of the Colony, have led to a complete economic collapse. Much of the assistance will be devoted indirectly to the sugar industry of Mauritius. His Majesty's Government do not feel that they ought to or could directly assist that industry merely because it was suffering from depressed prices, like the sugar and other industries of many British Colonies, but the special difficulties resulting from the hurricane, which are most unlikely to be soon repeated, in their opinion, justify
special facilities. The advances to be made to the planters will, it should be noted, be limited to the actual expenditure necessitated and undertaken because of the damage caused by the hurricane.
His Majesty's Government have every hope that these measures of assistance will succeed in placing Mauritius once more in a sound position, and they are satisfied that no other method could be -so effective, and at the same time place less burdens on His Majesty's Government. Steps are now being taken for the early appointment of the proposed Financial Commission, which is to advise on measures to balance the Budget of the Colony. It is gratifying to know that the sugar industry of the colony, although it is at present suffering from -the world depression, has been declared, on the high authority of the late Sir F. Watts, to be efficiently managed, and my Noble Friend is confident that it will survive if the effects of this natural catastrophe can be mitigated. On the occasion of the last comparable disaster in Mauritius, the even more disastrous hurricane of 1892, His Majesty's Government also lent assistance by guaranteeing a loan, a large part of which was advanced to the planters. In that case, the whole of the advances have been repaid, and His Majesty's Government have never been called upon to implement their guarantee. Once the present difficulties are over, my Noble Friend is confident that the people of Mauritius will do everything in their power to secure that the same will be the case with the present loan. The natural courage and resource of the people of Mauritius will, I am sure, be stimulated by the evidence which the contribution to the relief fund, and the guarantee in the proposed Bill gives of the continued interest and concern of the people and Parliament of this country for the welfare and prosperity of the attractive island colony of Mauritius.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I wish to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies upon the statement which he has just made. At the same time, I must confess that, in my view, it is a small and inadequate attempt to settle the big sugar problem which is so acute in Mauritius and the West Indies. Sugar is to the West Indies and to Mauritius what cloves are to
Zanzibar. It must not be overlooked that the sugar industry represents more than 90 per cent. of the energies of the island. It has been objected by some people that Mauritius has been unwise in putting all its eggs into one basket, that is the sugar basket, but the answer to that is that Mauritius is subject to hurricanes, that sugar is a product which stands hurricanes best, and also employs the most peasants to the acre.
This is also a matter of employment to the people of Mauritius and to the people of Jamaica. It is also a great shipping question, because Mauritius has been shipping something like 220,000 tons of sugar to this country. I need not stress that point, because I know hon. Members are aware what this means to our shipping trade. The sugar question is also a question of shipping between this country and the West Indies. I would ask why, instead of a system of doles—because this is a dole to a large extent—which will only go a small way, and is not, if I may so put it, a fertilising measure, the Government do not adopt what the whole Empire is longing for, namely, a bold policy of preference. If they adopted that policy, they would get a large measure of support from their own back benches, there would be a sigh of relief through the whole Empire, and you would have a policy that would produce encouragement, work and life, instead of a policy of doles. But we have to-day a Government that believes in doles—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss that matter on this Money Resolution.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I am sorry if I have gone rather outside the Rules of Order; let me return to the Mauritius. I would parallel the case of Mauritius with the case of Jamaica. On the question of sugar, the Government sent out their own representative, Lord Olivier, to Jamaica. He was a Free Trader; he was opposed to the policy of preference before he went out; but when he reached Jamaica and examined the question he completely changed his views.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If I allowed the hon. Member to proceed along that line, he would raise the whole
question of Protection. We cannot discuss that question on the Resolution before the Committee.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I wish we could get on to that question. I was using Jamaica as an illustration with regard to the Government policy in Mauritius. I would only add that the policy that I would recommend for Mauritius is one that has been recommended by the chosen envoy of the Government itself. There are various ways in which the island of Mauritius can be helped. The Government have chosen one way, and the least efficient way. What the sugar planters and those engaged in the industry are earnestly asking for is an increase of preference in this country, and there is no need for any fear on the part of the Government that that would cause an increase of price in this country.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not proceed along those lines. The Question before the Committee is whether this money shall be granted for this purpose or not.

Mr. AMERY: On a point of Order. Is it not within the Rules of the House for an hon. Member to suggest alternative ways of achieving the same result with less direct cost to the Exchequer than the particular financial proposal which is now before the Committee?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That can be done within the Rules of Order, but, if I allowed the hon. Member to proceed along the lines that he wishes, the real issue before the Committee would be obscured, and we should debate the question of tariffs instead of the Resolution.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: A rather obscure statement was made by the Minister, having something to do with Excise and the financial position of the country. I take it that we should be able to follow that up a little further?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I will wait until I hear what the hon. Member has to say on that point.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I am sorry to have transgressed the Rules of Order, but I was really endeavouring to follow the line indicated by my right hon. Friend, that is to say, to point out as well as I could
an alternative method. The Under-Secretary has proposed a guarantee, and he has also envisaged a certain loss to the Exchequer. I would ask him to substitute for that method one which would not involve any additional cost to the Exchequer, and which—since in all matters we must consider the good of the people of this country—would not cause an increase in the cost of sugar to the people of this country. I say that because, owing to the competition of the sugars of Cuba and Java, there will be no possibility of an increase of price in this country. I hope I am not out of order in saying that there is so much tenderness for the necessity of cheap sugar for the co-operative movement that the Government are genuinely afraid of the policy of preference. I mention that in passing, but I do urge upon the Under-Secretary and the Government that, instead of an inadequate policy of doles, which sterilises and discourages, we should adopt the alternative policy which is earnestly desired by the whole Empire, and which would bring life and hope to our trade and people.

Mr. AMERY: In all quarters of the Committee we welcome, even in these hard times, the decision of the Government to help the little Colony of Mauritius in the disaster which has overtaken it, not at a normal time, but at a time when Mauritius has been going through the most severe crisis in its whole history. We also welcome with particular satisfaction the information that the Under-Secretary has communicated to the Committee with regard to the generous and practical sympathy shown by a neighbouring French Colony. There are few fields of international co-operation more fruitful than that in which France and England and other great colonising Powers can take part in neighbourly help in their Colonial sphere. It was always one of my ambitions, when I was in the office in which the hon. Gentleman serves to-day, to encourage contact between French and English Colonial territories and their officials.
Both countries are engaged in a common task of civilisation and development. To that task each brings its distinctive national quality and national genius, but, in carrying out that task, there is a great deal that each of us can
learn from the other without sacrificing our essential principles. At this moment France is with just pride showing the world what she has done in the way of civilising work in her great Colonial Empire, and from that point of view I am in some ways sorry that it was not possible for the British Colonial Empire to be represented on an adequate scale at this great International Exhibition—an exhibition whose object is not merely to display the wealth and resources of these Colonies, but to show to the world that the nations of the European West have a sense of responsibility for the great native populations under their charge, and are doing something effective to discharge that responsibility.
When it comes to learning from each other, I think it is worth while to point out the difference in the attitude which we on the one hand and France on the other adopt towards these Colonies. The whole conception of France is that these Colonies are an integral part of France. They subserve the general welfare of France on the one hand. There is no hesitation in the mind of any Frenchman in expressing the view that a colony should be so developed as to contribute towards the prosperity and greatness of France. But they also, on the other hand, recognise complete responsibility on the part of France for the prosperity and development of those Colonies, and for providing them with the revenues which they need, and with the market which they need, for their development and prosperity.
We proceed, in the main, on a different basis. Our idea is that each Colony should stand on its own feet, should find its own level, and should be economically a self-contained unit. There is a great deal to be said for our point of view as inculcating independence in the colonies themselves and as preventing any conception of exploitation of them in the interest of this country. But we must be careful not to Carry our principle too far. Where you have a large colony or a dominion with varied economic interests and widely-spread resources, it can and ought to pay its own way. It can always find a certain internal market to sustain itself. If a disaster, like a hurricane, or a depression, like the depression in the price of sugar, strikes the sugar industry of Queensland or Natal or strikes, say, the cocoa industry in Nigeria, there
are large and varied resources over which the disaster can be spread. There are alternative forms of production. There is an internal market. But I think we ought to consider the special case of these small units, such as Mauritius, Fiji, the West Indian Islands and Zanzibar, which are intrinsically far too small to stand by themselves as self-contained units in the modern world, which, under the government of any other country, would be incorporated in a larger economic system, which cannot live by themselves but which depend entirely upon outside markets.
In the case of Mauritius, as the White Paper shows, 98 per cent. of the exports on which the island depends for its daily bread—because practically all ordinary stock foods, rice and flour and other essentials of life, have to be imported—depend upon a single industry. That industry to-day is in a position, as far as Mauritius is concerned, of almost hopeless difficulty, a difficulty not caused by inefficiency on the part of the Mauritius planters, as the Under-Secretary has clearly indicated, nor indeed to any mere accidental depression in world prices. The actual cost of production of sugar in Mauritius is well below the average cost of production in the world as a whole. Mauritius is suffering, apart from this cyclone which has added to its troubles, from the artificial action of other great States and communities in the world, and we, who are responsible for its welfare, have done nothing to compensate them.
If we believe that Free Trade is the best system for this country and are not prepared to help Mauritius by preference, we ought alternatively to treat Mauritius as part of our Free Trade area, not only from the point of view of markets, but from the point of view of finance, and give it throughout the same assistance and succour that we would give to any county in this country that was going through a period of depression. What is, in fact, happening is that a small colony, because it is a British colony, gets the worst of both worlds. It would be infinitely more prosperous at this moment if it were a French possession. The neighbouring island of Reunion is highly prosperous. Mauritius, producing exactly the same kind of products with a populat-
ion of substantially the same race—after all, the majority of the white population are of French descent and have preserved French culture and the charm of French life in their little colony—suffers because it belongs to Great Britain and not to any other empire. It seems to me that that raises a great issue of Imperial responsibility which we ought to face, and which we are not facing. It is no good riding off on the ground that we are not prepared to give fiscal preference. What is the effective alternative through which we are going to exercise our responsibility? The present alternative is nothing more than a temporary dole. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in laying stress on that. There is nothing in these loans to give the slightest assurance to Mauritius that it can weather the storm in the next few years.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am rather afraid the right hon. Gentleman is going beyond the terms of the Money Resolution. The White Paper states quite clearly that of the £750,000 which it is proposed to raise by loan, £75,000 is required to repair and replace Government property, £500,000 for making loans to planters in respect of damage to their property, and £175,000 for the construction of public works. The question of the depressed condition of the sugar industry is not raised by this Money Resolution at all, except in so far as It is due to the catastrophe which has befallen the island. If I were to permit a debate on the question of Preference, I can see no end to the discussion.

Mr. AMERY: I was not intending in any way to discuss the general question of Preference, but I submit that this grant to Mauritius in its distress raises the general issue of our responsibility to that colony and to similarly situated colonies, of permanently assisting them. I was going on to point out that these particular measures, in which, as far as they go, all sides of the House will readily concur, do not fulfil our responsibility in one way or the other. They are purely temporary and, as far as I can see, there is nothing in the prospects of Mauritius, quite apart from the contingency of another cyclone, which will enable the hard pressed planters to be in a
position to repay these loans or to enable the Government of Mauritius to get over the deficits, which would be far more serious than they are if the wise foresight of Sir Hesketh Bell, when he was Governor of the island, had not accumulated a very substantial reserve fund.
We all agree with the actual measures proposed as an alleviation of the immediate situation, but I think we are entitled to ask the Government to face more seriously than this or any other Government in the past has faced the responsibility of this country towards those small units of the British Empire which, in present world economic conditions, cannot live by themselves. You must in some way or other incorporate them in a wider system. You can incorporate them from the point of view of markets or of finance. In one way or another, the appeal that I would make is for a more permanent and far-reaching sense of responsibility towards these small units, which, after all, ought to be proud of belonging to the British Empire, but I am afraid in only too many cases look at the adjoining smaller units, which fly the American, the French or the Dutch flag, and realise that they are sufficient because they are under the Union Jack.

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: I welcome the proposal in the same sense as, I have no doubt, it was welcomed by most hon. Members on this side of the House and by the people of Mauritius, namely, that half-a-loaf is better than no bread, and that we should be thankful for small mercies. It is clear from the Memorandum explaining the Resolution that the proposed loans to Mauritius to be guaranteed by the Treasury are to be limited to the exceptional and abnormal losses due solely to the hurricane which visited the island from the 5th to 8th March of this year. It is the very least that the Government could do. During the past two years, Mauritius, like our sugar-producing colonies in the West Indies, has been faced with a very severe economic crisis which, as we have been told, has been due to surplus stocks and overproduction in the world supply of sugar, and, consequently, an artificially low selling price of that commodity. The seriousness of the economic position of our sugar-producing colonies was made clear to the Government by the report of the Olivier Commission which visited
the West Indies in 1929, and by the report of the late Sir Francis Watts on Mauritius. The Olivier Commission recommended, inter alia, that the British preference on Empire sugar should be raised as quickly as possible to 4s. 8d. per cwt., and that the preference should not be reduced below 4s. 8d. until His Majesty's Government had concluded an international agreement in concert with the other Powers to eliminate the disturbing features of high tariffs, or until a single purchasing agency has been set up to purchase all sugar for the United Kingdom, buying Imperial sugar £15 a ton c.i.f., and the other sugar at the market price. If those recommendations had been carried out, it might not have been necessary, in my opinion, for us to have been discussing this Motion this morning. Neither of those recommendations were accepted or followed by the Government.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not follow the argument of the hon. Member. The loan which is being asked for is due to a catastrophe which happened in those islands, and I cannot allow the general question of tariffs to arise. This loan is for the purpose of meeting a special need caused by an event of nature.

Mr. BOYCE: I have no intention or desire to take the general question of tariffs. What I was proceeding to say was, that, if the recommendations of the Commission which the Government set up had been carried out, the economic position in the islands at the present time might have been such that they themselves would have been able to have defrayed, out of their own funds, the damage which has been incurred as a result of the hurricane. I was pointing out that the plight of the sugar-producing colonies, including Mauritius, had already become a desperate one, and that it called for urgent action on the part of the Government before there was any question of this disastrous hurricane having visited the island.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to overlook the fact that this loan is being asked for on account of that catastrophe, and not in respect of the situation before it occurred. The loan is being raised for a specific reason, and we must keep, within reasonable limits, to that reason.

Mr. BOYCE: I bow to your ruling, and I will endeavour not to go outside the scope of the discussion. What is the posi-
tion in Mauritius to-day? There is a population of 410,000 people who depend for their very existence almost entirely upon the sugar industry. All their food has to be imported into the country, and yet, as we have been told by the Minister, 98 per cent. of the exports of the island are represented by sugar. Therefore, the purchasing power and the economic and social well-being of the people depend almost entirely upon the prosperity of the sugar industry. For some time the colony has been selling sugar at a loss. The present preference which we accord to them is not sufficient to enable the planters to recover their production costs, and it is obvious to the Government that they cannot go on losing money indefinitely.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) has drawn the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Government owes a special debt to the Colonies—a debt which they do not owe to the Dominions—because they are governed from Downing Street. The Government have been standing by watching the position develop. The Minister himself has remarked that Mauritius has never failed in its loyalty towards this country. That is perfectly true. There is no more loyal or patriotic part of the Empire than Mauritius, but I submit that the inaction of the Government has put a severe strain upon the patriotism of the people of that Island. For two years they have suffered increasingly from the curse of being a British colony with an unsympathetic Socialist Government at Westminster. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook pointed out, if they had been a colony of a foreign power—of the United States of America, of Holland or of France—they would have been in a far better and happier position to-day. We on this side of the Committee welcome this proposal. We welcome it, as I said at the beginning, in the sense that we are thankful for small mercies, and we hope that the Bill will be introduced immediately and expeditiously placed upon the Statute Book, and that the Government will not be satisfied with having merely done that, but will introduce further legislation at an early date in order to bring further relief to the deserving people of our much distressed sugar colonies.

Mr. WARD LAW-MILNE: There are one or two small points with which, first of all, I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State to deal, if he has not already done so. I apologise for not having been able to hear the first few words of his speech, and, if he has dealt with those points, I do not wish him to repeat what he has said. I notice that in the White Paper there is a statement in paragraphs (c) and (d) of the requirements necessary from the colony before the loan comes into effect, and that the loan will be a first charge on the general revenues and assets of the territory. I am putting the point shortly. The statement, as hon. Members will notice, is that the principle and interest of the loan are to stand before any further loans that may be raised by the colony in the future. I should like to know whether that matter has really been carefully considered, and whether the Government are satisfied that, if the Money Resolution and the Bill are passed in this form, which forces Mauritius to make the repayment of the loan a first charge ahead of any future loans or moneys that the Colony may desire to raise, we are not putting a burden upon the Colony which it really cannot bear. I have no doubt that this matter has had the very careful attention of the Colony, but I should like to know whether the Colony are satisfied that they will be able to shoulder that obligation, or whether it is the case that they have been forced into this position because they must have the money and cannot otherwise help themselves.
With regard to the total of the loan, I agree that owing to the magnitude of the figures with which we are accustomed to deal in this House, it does not seem a very large amount. But £750,000 is a very large amount for a colony like Mauritius to repay, and, although I know that the last loan has been repaid without any burden being placed upon this country, I ask the Under-Secretary of State whether it would not have been better for the Government to have allowed the Colony to raise a larger loan without the guarantee of the principal by this country, but with the guarantee only of the interest. This is not such a far-fetched idea as it may, at first sight, appear. It has been carried out in other colonies. It was carried out, for example, in works which the Nyasaland Government required in connection with the
Trans-Zambezia Railway. There the Government of Nyasaland did not guarantee the repayment of the capital at all, but it guaranteed for a period of years the repayment of the interest. It would have been advantageous to Mauritius if they had been enabled to raise a larger loan, or a larger amount in a series of loans, and to have had only the interest guaranteed from this country, the principal being left to be dependent on the future prosperity of the Colony.
These are points which are well worthy of attention, because it is clear that the Colony, apart from this disaster, which we are glad to see is being dealt with, is not in a position to face the repayment of large loans under ordinary trading conditions. We on this side, probably many hon. Members on the other side, and certainly the bulk of the people in the country, are looking eagerly for another Government to be in office, with a different fiscal policy and a preferential tariff under which there might be a chance of a colony like Mauritius once again experiencing prosperity. While the present fiscal conditions prevail the Colony may not be in a position to find the money for the repayment of a loan issued under conditions which might prevent it in the future from raising any loans at all. Unless there are steady and prosperous conditions in the sugar industry the future financial position of the Colony may be one of great difficulty.
I should like to know from the Under-Secretary whether these points have had the attention of the Government, whether it is too late to raise them now and whether negotiations with those who represent Mauritius might not make it possible for the Colony to have a system under which her future finance would not be entirely handicapped by the conditions of the loan. I have not the ability of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) in getting within the Ruling of the Chair a statement upon the difficulties which all the sugar Colonies have to face, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) that if we are not prepared to work on the same terms as other nations do with their Colonies, within a tariff or preferential system, we must be prepared to give our Colonies financial and other help on a basis which this country so far has not shown any signs of doing.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: . Everyone will join in the chorus of sympathy with the very loyal people who inhabit the Island of Mauritius. I shall view the Financial Resolution with a rather more critical eye than has been done by other hon. Members, but I shall do so because I realise that the raising of money for any purpose often has an effect upon people in a way that is not thought of at the time. The Under Secretary of State referred to the deficit of the Mauritius Government. I understand that there will be a deficit for the year ending the 1st July, 1931, and I presume that the deficit is entirely due to the hurricane. Supposing there had been no hurricane, would there have been a deficit? Unless we have that information we cannot tell what is our real position in advancing the money. We have to look at the security. The Under-Secretary did not state the amount of the deficit. Is it £100,000 or a larger sum? That is one of the things which in a shrewd prospectus is very often hidden. The hon. Member would be well advised to be frank about the position and then he can approach us with all the more confidence.
12. n
We might be given some information as to what probability there is that at the end of, say, two years the inhabitants of Mauritius, by means of taxation, will be able to start paying back the money. I find from the White Paper that a sum of £75,000 is required for the repair and replacement of Government property damaged in the hurricane, and £500,000 for loans to planters and others in respect of hurricane damage to property. The latter sum may include plant for sugar making, assuming that the plant has been destroyed. With respect to the amount required for the replacement of Government property, the Under-Secretary mentioned the hospital. Is that property being replaced? There is a further sum of £175,000 for the construction of public works. In each of these cases there must be a large amount of material coming from outside Mauritius, and as we are finding £750,000 I should like to know whether that material is coming from within the British Empire? We have a right to a guarantee that the money shall be spent in that way. I am more in favour of this guaranteed loan than some of the
other guaranteed loans, but I will nut refer to them otherwise hon. Members opposite might be perturbed. Will the Under-Secretary state the amount of the previous loan and what period elapsed before it was paid back. Unless we are given this information it is impossible for us as representatives of the taxpayers to judge whether we are justified in asking them to allow us to vote this loan. What is the total debt of Mauritius at the present time? There must be some debt; if there is not it is a very peculiar place. I want to know the total amount of the debt before this £750,000 is added to it, so that we can judge whether we are justified in making this additional loan, and also the revenue of Mauritius', say, for the last five years in order to judge what chance there is of repayment. It is much better to deal with these matters in Committee now, although, of course, this Money Resolution must be followed by a Bill.
There are several other questions that I desire to put to the Under-Secretary of State. Presuming that we grant this loan, what guarantee can he give us that the inhabitants of these islands, when they have rebuilt their factories and reestablished their works, will be able to sell the goods they produce? Has he taken any steps to see that they will be able to sell their goods? I am not going to say anything this morning about tariffs, but if we are to guarantee this loan I think the hon. Member should tell us that he is taking steps to improve the methods and machinery by which these people will be able to sell their goods after they have been produced, that he has taken steps to provide better facilities for them for marketing their goods. Now I come to another side of this question. We are being asked by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to make this loan, but the Financial Secretary is absent. He has not come down to the Committee to explain the position, and I must protest very strongly at the absence of any financial advice this morning. It has always been the custom of the Treasury in the past to explain these loans and it is impossible to vote for a loan of this kind, apart from sentiment, unless we know what proportion it bears to other similar loans. Only the Treasury can tell us that.
I do not propose to oppose this Financial Resolution, but I must issue a warn-
ing and a protest that in the matter of these loans we are building up a great debt which in itself is a burden on trade and industry. This loan of £750,000, unless there is a guarantee that the whole of it or nearly the whole of it comes back to this country by way of buying goods and materials here, will have to come out of the trade and industry of this country. That is a point which is rarely considered. There is one other question upon which I do not propose to expand—I am not good at expanding—and that is in relation to what the Under Secretary of State said about excise. I did not quite understand his remarks. What is the trouble about the Excise duty? He intimated that it had a great bearing on this question. If he will read his speech without correction he will find that I am not very far wrong. The reason for this loan is that the island was prosperous until it suffered from the world depression; and since then there has been the hurricane. Do I understand that the hurricane has necessitated this loan? I hope we may have an answer to these questions, and then I shall follow the further stages of the Bill in a very friendly manner.

Mr. HANIMON: I will not follow the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) in his expansive speech, but there was some substance in one point he made, and that is the propriety of attaching a condition to loans of this character that the materials required should be purchased within the British Empire. The policy of this country has been to hand out these loans without any condition at all as to how the money should be expended, whereas practically every foreign country which becomes a lender of money attaches a condition to a loan that a substantial part of it shall be expended in the country which makes the loan. Take the United States of America in its relations with the South American Republics. Conditions are attached to the loans that the money shall in whole or in part be spent in the United States, and it would be a very sound and practical policy for this country to attach similar conditions to these loans. There is a sum of £175,000 for the construction of public works in this unhappy island which has suffered this misfortune at the hand of nature. Can the Under-Secretary use his influence to have as large a proportion of
that sum as possible expended in this country? No doubt a great deal will be required for construction work and must be of a quasi manufactured character. It would help this country if the Secretary of State would use his personal influence to see that as much as possible of this money is expended in this country. I congratulate the Government heartily on bringing forward this Resolution, and I hope that the Bill will have an easy passage. Every gesture to help our struggling colonies, and particularly the Crown Colonies, which suffered so much in the War, is constructive statesmanship.

Dr. SHIELS: I have to express my appreciation of the sympathetic reception of this Resolution by the Committee. It will not, I think, be necessary to take much time in dealing with the points raised. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) spoke of this measure as a dole. That is surely a wrong way of looking at it. It is rather an expression of practical sympathy with the Colony on a very exceptional occasion. The hon. Member was, of course, leading up to what I was afraid would hardly be avoided—some reference to Preference as a panacea. He and other hon. Members had some difficulty with the Chair in speaking of Preference in connection with this Resolution, and I do not propose to venture into this field to any great extent. But I would remind the Committee that there is at present a substantial Preference on sugar, amounting to an average of 3s. or 4s. a cwt. To those who receive this Preference it adds over 50 per cent. on the world price. In respect of Mauritius it means that assistance is given by the British taxpayer to the extent of about £750,000 annually. This Preference has been continued by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in spite of his well-known desire to have a free breakfast table as soon as possible.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) spoke of the differences between French and Colonial policy. It does not follow, however, that the advantages are all on the one side. In regard to the proposition which he put forward, in favour of such colonies as Mauritius being members of a larger economic and political unit, I will only say that we know from experience that these colonies value very much the con-
siderable amount of autonomy which they possess under the present system. If the ideal which the right hon. Gentleman put forward were achieved, it would almost inevitably, from the consequent greater centralisation, involve the loss of something that is very much appreciated by the Mauritius people at the present time. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) referred to certain financial points. These, of course, as he suggested, were all carefully considered before this matter was finally determined. I would remind him that the terms are quite usual in these cases. They have been accepted by the Government of Mauritius. They are reasonable in themselves, and there is no sufficient reason to believe that they cannot be met. The bon. Member spoke about a proposed larger loan. The reply to that is that Mauritius has not asked for a larger loan. If and when it does the Government will be prepared to consider it. I suggest to him that a loan of the kind proposed, of which the principle is not guaranteed, might not be issuable on reasonable terms. That is a side which has to be remembered.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: The Under Secretary says that if a larger amount of money were eventually required by the Colony the matter might be reconsidered, but the point that I put to him was that Under the terms of the White Paper it would appear to be impossible for that to happen, because this loan is to be a first charge above and beyond anything in future. It seemed to me that that was such a rigid condition, that I wondered whether he and the Government of Mauritius were satisfied that in the next 40 years it would never occur that Mauritius would want to raise money, and whether this condition would not be a handicap.

Dr. SHIELS: I understand the hon. Member and was about to answer that point. There is no reason to suppose that Mauritius will be precluded from raising future loans by reason of the priority given to this one. The 1892 guarantee loan had the same priority, but that has not prevented Mauritius since then raising a number of loans on its own credit and without the guarantee of the Imperial Government. While I appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Member, I think he will find that there is no real danger.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Does the loan come under the Colonial Stock Acts?

Dr. SHIELS: I believe so. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked a number of questions. I am always impressed by the interest which the hon. Member takes in a large variety of subjects, and by his great desire for accurate information regarding them. It is true that there would have been a deficit supposing that the hurricane had not occurred. I thought I made that clear in my earlier statement. In regard to Government property, the hospital will certainly be replaced. He asked, as did also the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) about the money being spent in this country. It is true that there is no condition to that effect laid down in connection with this guarantee; but it must be remembered that we are not lending the money; we are simply giving a guarantee. From what we know of the outlook of Mauritius it is practically certain that all possible material will be so bought. No doubt there will be the greatest amount of expenditure on labour, and there is a fair wage clause in connection with the work which is to be done on the island.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will any representation be made of the feeling of the House of Commons that the materials if possible should be of British origin.

Dr. SHIELS: I feel that it is really unnecessary to make such a representation and that it might not be desirable to do so. I believe it to be practically certain, from the record of Mauritius and all we know about it, that British materials will be used as much as possible. In regard to the Government property the material used will be purchased in this country as a matter of course. I do not think it would be necessary and it might not be wise to put in a specific condition of that kind as regards the other expenditure. The hon. Member asked about the total debt. It is £2,800,000. In regard to other help, I would like to say that the Empire Marketing Board has taken a consistent interest in Mauritius and has done its best to help in various ways. All this is appreciated by the people of Mauritius who are not, I think, likely to accept the view of an hon. Member on the back benches opposite who suggested, in effect, that it was a curse to be a
British colony. I think if the hon. Member gave our British colonies the choice of being other than British colonies, he would be impressed by the response.

Mr. HANNON: As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce) is not in his place, I would like to say that it ought not to go out from this Committee that he made a specific statement of that kind. The impression which his statement conveyed to me and the impression which I am sure he intended to convey, was that in certain circumstances, having regard to the fiscal policy of the British Empire, and particularly the fiscal policy of this country, it was a misfortune to be a British colony. I hope it will be clearly understood that he did not make the statement attributed to them by the hon. Gentleman.

HON. MEMBERS: He said it.

Dr. SHIELS: I would not wish to do the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce) any injustice and I gladly accept the hon. Member's view of what he said. I have dealt, I believe, with most of the points raised in the course of the discussion. Again, may I say that I appreciate the reception which the Resolution has received from the Committee. It is what one would have expected and I shall be very grateful if the Committee can now see it way to come to a decision.

Mr. REMER: I would not have intervened but for the concluding remark of the hon. Gentleman with reference to the speech—to which we listened with considerable admiration—of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Boyce). What my hon. Friend said was quite different from the construction put upon it by the hon. Gentleman. He pointed out that certain other islands, mentioning the Island of Reunion, sometimes called the Ile de Bourbon, were under the French fiscal system, and he pointed out that the people of Mauritius might well think that they would be more prosperous under French rule or American rule than under British rule, in existing circumstances. My hon. Friend went out of his way to pay a tribute to the patriotism of the people of Mauritius and therefore I think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks upon his speech were wholly uncalled for. The
Government, by this Resolution are doing a great service to the Island of Mauritius, but I submit that if it had not been for the fiscal policy of the Government before the disaster took place, there would be no necessity for any loan. I presume that the Island of Reunion was visited by the same hurricane, but I have yet to learn that the French Government have had to make a loan, showing that by their fiscal policy they have been able to avoid that necessity. I have no intention, however, of going further into that subject, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is seriously to be called to task for his remarks about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I put some serious questions to the Under-Secretary and I think he might have had the courtesy to answer more of them. I propose to repeat two of them and I think I am justified in expecting an answer. The first is, what is the deficit on Mauritius at the present time, and, the second is, what was the total revenue of Mauritius say, a year ago? These are two fundamental points and if the Under-Secretary cannot give us the information now, then that information ought to be given at a later stage.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): There is the Library.

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is no answer in this Committee to tell Members that they can go to the Library. The arrogance of Members on the Front Bench is becoming overwhelming. They will do this kind of thing to the Liberal party one day and then there will be trouble.

Dr. SHIELS: The public debt, I understand, is £2,800,000 and the annual revenue is a little over £1,000,000. I hope that information will satisfy the hon. Member.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Cannot the hon. Gentleman let us have the amount of the deficit. It is sometimes difficult to get information of that kind at a later stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — PROBATION OF OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Probation officers.)

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, to leave out Sub-sections (3) and (4), and to insert instead thereof the words:
(3) (a) For the purposes of the Local Government and other Officers Superannuation Act, 1922, a salaried probation officer for any probation area shall be deemed to be an officer in the permanent service of the local authority for the area occupying a post which the local authority may designate as an established post for the said purposes;
(b) In the application of the last foregoing paragraph to a probation area which comprises in whole or in part the areas of two or more local authorities there shall be substituted for the local authority for the area—

(i) in the ease where the aforesaid Act of 1922 applies to only one of such authorities, that authority;
(ii) in the case where the said Act applies to more than one of such authorities, such one of the authorities to whom the Act applies as may be agreed between them or, failing agreement, be determined by the Secretary of State;
(c) Any equivalent contribution under section eighteen of the aforesaid Act of 1922 which is payable in pursuance of this sub-section in respect of a salaried probation officer for any probation area shall be paid by the probation committee for the area and shall be included among the expenses to which sub-section (1) of section six of this Act applies;
(d) References in this sub-section to the Local Government and other Officers Superannuation Act, 1922, and to the equivalent contribution under section eighteen thereof, shall be deemed to include, respectively, references to any provision in a local Act or in any scheme thereunder relating to the superannuation of the officers or servants of a local authority and to any payment in pursuance of such provision or of any scheme thereunder similar to the said equivalent contribution.
Provided that for the purposes of any such Act or scheme which contains no provision for the designation of posts as established posts a salaried probation officer shall be deemed to be an officer or servant of the local authority if the local authority so determine.
This is an Amendment dealing with the matter of the superannuation of the pro-
bation officers to be appointed under the provisions of the Bill.
The House will remember that when the Bill was in Committee the position of probation officers in relation to superannuation was considered, and the view was expressed that it was desirable that any scheme that might be made by the Secretary of State under the powers of the Bill in relation to superannuation should not come into conflict with any existing schemes of superannuation that might be made applicable to probation officers; and with a view to giving effect to that point of view, the House will remember that in Committee, in Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, in line 12, these words were added:
where no satisfactory scheme of superannuation is in existence.
Since the Committee stage of the Bill the Government have given further consideration to the matter, and it is thought that the better way to deal with this matter is to make applicable to probation officers the provisions of the Local Government and other Officers Superannuation Act, 1922; and the purpose of the Amendment is to give effect to that view. Under paragraph (a) of the new Sub-section (3), probation officers will be, in the matter of superannuation, on the same footing as other officers and servants of the local authorities. The other provisions of the Amendment are subsidiary and merely work out the idea which I have just explained.

Sir JOHN GILMOUR: We are indebted to the Lord Advocate for explaining the reasons for this new Sub-section. I should like to be clear in my own mind exactly how far this will meet the case, and how the operation will affect the local authorities. I observe that under the Local Government and other Officers Superannuation Act, 1922, that Act shall not apply to a local authority unless it is adopted at a specially called meeting and by a certain majority, and I should like to know whether the Lord Advocate can tell us, in the first place, whether all or the major part of the local authorities in Scotland have in fact already adopted that Act. In the second place, it appears to me that while, under the 1922 Act, it is a matter for definite settlement by the local authorities, who are responsible to those whom they rate, whether or not they adopt this, as far as
I can see, under the Sub-section which we are now asked to support, this may be forced upon the local authorities by the sole dictation of the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State, whoever may be there.
There is one other point that I want to clear up. As we know, provision may be made under certain circumstances whereby local authorities may be combined for the purpose of dealing with this problem, and I should like to be clear as to whether, in the event of, say, two authorities being combined, one of those authorities having adopted this Act and the other not having done so, the Bill makes provision that the Secretary of State shall then order the second dissenting local authority to adopt it, and what will be the position of the individual probation officer who, perhaps, comes under one authority with the Act adopted, the other authority not being concerned. Will his superannuation be guaranteed by the single one? These are technical points. In the first Clause, we have already agreed that it shall not always be necessary, in every probation area, to have a fully salaried probation officer. It may be that two authorities may be combined, under whom one is a fully salaried probation officer and the other is not; and one wants to be quite certain that there is machinery for dealing with this problem, and that there will be no unfairness towards the local authorities in any action which the Secretary of State may take.
I should suppose that in any case, if there were differences and disputes between local authorities on these problems, and the Secretary of State had to intervene, there would be some machinery by which the matter could be reviewed. I am not certain as to whether it could be reviewed by this House, or what appeal the local authority might have in the matter; but while I am very desirous of seeing a workable solution of this problem, I am a little doubtful whether, as the Clause is now drafted, that matter is quite clear. At any rate, one thing is quite certain, as I read it. There is an overriding and dictatorial power now being adopted by the Secretary of State which hitherto remained in the hands of the local authorities, and while we may all of us, when we are in office, feel constrained sometimes to adopt a dictatorial
attitude to solve certain difficulties, I am bound to say that, in view of the importance and the increased size of the local authorities in Scotland, it would be very undesirable if any such system were adopted.

The LORD ADVOCATE: With your permission, Sir, I should like to reply to the right hon. Gentleman. It is the case that the majority of local authorities in Scotland have not adopted the Act of 1922, but the effect of that is just this, that probation officers will be in no better and no worse position than other employés of the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt remember that, owing to the number of probation officers being comparatively limited, it would scarcely be possible to frame a proper superannuation scheme. The only way to do it is to graft it on to existing schemes of superannuation. The right hon. Gentleman put a second point: What would be done in the case of a local authority which had not adopted the provisions of the Act of 1922? We can do nothing in that case. There is no machinery in the Bill for compelling a local authority to adopt the provisions of the Act of 1922. The position of the local authority in that matter remains undisturbed.
The third point put by the right hon. Gentleman was as to what would happen in a case where you have a probation area comprising the areas of two counties, and only one authority has adopted the provisions of the Act. That, of course, would be an anomalous case. I am afraid that the anomaly would just have to remain, and the charge for superannuation would be upon the adopting authority. No doubt that is an anomaly, but we feel that it is impossible to get an absolutely complete scheme in this matter, and that this is the best we are able to do in the situation. I hope, therefore, that with this explanation, the House will see its way to accept the Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: The explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely satisfactory as covering the Amendment, but under Sub-section (2) it is in the power of the Secretary of State to determine the salary of such officers and that does leave the dictatorial power, to which my right hon. Friend referred, in the hands of the Scottish Office.
Although it is quite true that it is not able to fix the superannuation scale, which is a comparatively minor point, it has the power to fix the salary scale, which is a major point. Of course, this matter is all experimental. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate will be alive to what is rather an innovation in our Scottish administration, in that the local authority raises the money and the Scottish Office determines how much is to be paid. One man pays the piper, and the other man calls the tune. That is a power which, we hope, will be exercised with all reasonableness by the Scottish Office. I am sure the Lord Advocate will agree that we have to work this thing with the full knowledge of its experimental character, and on that understanding I think that we shall be willing now to pass on to the next Amendment. But the dictatorial power is there, and it is a distinct innovation in the Scottish system.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Probation Committees.)

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The three Amendments to this Clause in the name of the right hon. Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) will be taken together.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, page 3, line 17, to leave out the words "under the next succeeding Sub-section," and to insert instead thereof the words "and co-opted."
The three Amendments against which appear my name and the names of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Sir F. Thomson), my Noble Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser), I think can be considered together. As far as my object is concerned in moving this Amendment, it is to elicit from the Government a statement as to their views in regard to whether the local authority, who are, after all, the responsible persons for the expenditure and to those from whom they get the contributions, are to be masters in their own house? It will be within the recollection of the House that when we were responsible for the reconstitution of local government, one of the most important steps which we took was to alter the old conditions under which you had one authority spending and demanding from another authority, without the providing au-
thority having any control over that expenditure. Having abolished that, and put all the things under one local authority who have control of the spending, I am anxious that that principle shall not be departed from, or departed from lightly.
In this case it seems to me that, with the composition of these committees, to which it is suggested that certain people should be co-opted, and that women should be added, of which I heartily approve, as the Bill stands at present, unless the Amendments we suggest are given effect to, you may well have a body the majority of whom are not representative or answerable directly to the local authority. As everybody knows, those who are enthusiastic in carrying out a new service, and, quite legitimately, desire to see that service made as efficient as possible, may, with the best motives in the world, but without due consideration of the responsibility for finding the actual money, incur very considerable expenditure. As has been said already, this Bill is an experimental Measure. It is one in which Members on all sides of the House, and people outside the House, are interested, and are anxious to see work well, but I do ask that before we take any step which would remove the real and final control of finance from the local authority, we should be certain that we are doing a wise thing.

The LORD ADVOCATE: We appreciate that the purpose of these Amendments has been to draw attention to, and elicit a statement from the Government upon, the important matter of financial control of the expenditure of the probation committees. The effect of the main Amendment, if carried, would be to restrict the area of choice of the probation committees in the main to members of local authorities. No doubt there is power of co-option, but the purpose of the Amendment is to secure on each probation committee a majority of people who are members of the local authority, in order to secure proper control in the matter of finance. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, even if effect were given to his Amendment, the desired purpose would not be achieved. The probation committee, once it is constituted, is independent of the local authority; its functions are
statutory, and its duties are defined by this Bill. It would not be a committee of the local authority; it would not, in fact, be subject to the control of the local authority in the matter of expenditure, and I think there is serious objection to making it the subject of what I might call indirect pressure in the matter of finance. If you are going to have control, have control, but this Amendment doles not do it because the probation committee, once it is set up, will be a thing entirely apart from the local authority.
1.0 p.m.
There is another answer to the point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Bill, he will see that the provision for the control of finance is really adequate as it stands. Under Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, the probation committee is given power to pay salaries. Under the same Sub-section, it is given power to pay
sums on account of expenses incurred by those officers"—
that is probation officers—
in the performance of their duties as…subject to the provisions of this Act.… may be agreed upon between the Committee and the local authority concerned, or, failing agreement, may be determined by the Secretary of State.
Accordingly, the scheme of financial control is this. The probation committee pays salaries and expenses, subject to certain scales fixed in pursuance of the Act as may be agreed upon between the committee and the local authority, so that the local authority is not left in the dark in the matter of expenditure. It is taken into consultation, and in the event of disagreement, the matter goes to the Secretary of State. The purposes for which expenditure may be incurred are very limited; they are set out in Clause 6. They are really the expenses of salaries and other expenses of probation officers, and
any other expenses of a probation committee which may be incurred in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State.
In order to strengthen the control over the matter of expenditure, the Government propose an Amendment to Clause 9 which will come on a little later. Under that Clause the Secretary of State is empowered to make rules for carrying the Act into effect, and in particular, under
paragraph (b), to fix scales of salaries and remuneration to be paid in the case of salaried probation officers, and so on. We propose in Clause 9 (b) to delete the words after the word "regulating" and to insert the words "any other expenditure of probation committees." Accordingly, the right hon. Gentleman will see that the position is, first, that the purposes of the expenditure are very strictly defined by statute; second, that the expenditure can only be made after agreement with the local authorities, or, failing agreement, with the sanction of the Secretary of State; and, third, that the rules under which expenditure is made are to be framed by the Secretary of State, who, in conjunction with the Treasury, will be in a position to exercise very effective control. Therefore, although this Bill may contravene the very sound maxim that the spending authority should be the controlling authority, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman does not give effect to that maxim, and I suggest that after the explanation I have given, he should not press this matter to a Division.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Members who have listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be very puzzled at the form of body which it is proposed to set up. The Lord Advocate has outlined a body of a kind we have never seen before in Scottish administration. We know the ad hoc body set up with statutory powers for a definite purpose. We have seen that ad hoc body made dependent on another statutory authority for the funds with which to carry on its work. There was I think agreement that that was a bad system, and wide support was given for that part of the Local Government Act which laid down unified financial control. The Lord Advocate has admitted that unity of financial control is a sound principle. We also know the form of administrative body which is a statutory committee of a local authority. That is the position of the education committee in Scotland, and that is what my right hon. Friend has proposed to substitute in this Bill for the Government's proposal.

The LORD ADVOCATE: But it does not do it. I have pointed out that, if this Amendment were accepted, it would not make the probation committee a
statutory committee of the local authority. Acordingly, it is not on all fours with the education committee.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I admit that it is not entirely on all fours, because the Bill outlines the duties of the probation committee in more detail than in the case of the education committee of the local authority. I agree that the position of the probation committee is more clearly defined in this Bill than is the position of the education committee, but the Lord Advocate tells us that the probation committee is different, and that there is something distinct in its powers; its powers are specified by the Bill, and its members are to be nominated by the local authority; yet it is not a separate local authority which is to be set up. It is a new form of statutory body that is to be dependent for its finances on the local authority, and it is to be nominated by that local authority in accordance with rules in Clause 3, Sub-section (2), which says that the members of the Committee are to be appointed by the local authority in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): Nominated, not appointed.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should be happy to hear a disquisition from the right hon. Gentleman on the distinction between nominated and appointed. I am prepared to make him a present of that. This is entirely a new form of body which is to have its special powers outlined by this Bill, powers which are distinct from the powers of the local authority, while it is still to be dependent upon the local authority for finance, and it comes into being as the nominee of the local authority. It is something quite anomalous; we have never seen it before, and it is neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor even good red herring. Surely, if the probation committee is to be dependent for its funds on the local authority, it is of the first importance that local authorities should be interested in the work which the committee is doing. So far there has been no reason why the local authorities should have any special interest in probation work. They have had no responsibility for it.
If probation work is to be very much extended, as I hope it will be, and if the
expenses of probation committees are to be charged on the funds of the local authorities, it is extremely important that the authorities should be interested in the work of the probation committees, should feel a parental interest in what they are doing. Can we expect this, however, if they have to appoint committees whose functions are to be quite distinct, committees acting quite independently of the local authority and not necessarily having any members of the local authority upon them? The local authority need only be called in on the question of the expenses of this body, of whose work it may know nothing, because it operates under rules to be prescribed largely by the Secretary of State. Such procedure is calculated to make a local authority feel that it has no interest in the work of a probation committee, and even to cause friction. It is of the greatest importance that we should be assured that members of the local authority will have representation—I think it ought to be majority representation—on probation committees.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): In reply to the Noble Lady I would point out that the powers given to the local authorities allow them, if they so desire, to appoint all the members of the probation committees from their own directly-elected representatives, apart from those who will be members ex officio; but I am sure no one would regret such a course of action more than the Noble Lady. No one knows better than she that while we have on local authorities men and women with a particular aptitude for the different phases of local administration, it would be true to say that they do not include a superabundance of those who take that keen interest in probation work which the noble Lady and we on this side of the House desire to see. She has as great a knowledge of local administration as I have, and she knows the types of person to be found on local authorities. The proposals we submit will, I feel sure, meet the objects which she has at heart. It would be a bad thing if, as is suggested in the Amendment, we were to tie down local authorities to appoint only their own members to these probation committees. We ought to give them a wider discre-
tion. After all, so far as expenditure is concerned, that will be controlled in some measure by the Secretary of State.
In these circumstances, I think the Amendment ought to be withdrawn, because it would limit the power of local authorities to appoint to the probation committees individuals who are directly interested in probation work. That work, if it is to be successful, requires the human touch of those who are specially interested in it rather than of those who are more concerned with sewage schemes, housing schemes and the many other problems of local government. If it is the intention of the Amendment to create these probation committees as statutory committees of the local authority it does not achieve that particular purpose. It would still leave the committee as an ad hoc committee, in control of finance, with the limitations which are implied in the powers left with the Secretary of State. The noble Lady may feel assured that there is adequate provision for the supervision of expenditure on this new experiment. After all, the Local Government Act itself is a new experiment. I do not agree with the suggestion of the noble Lady that all committees which have spending powers but do not have to collect the money, as, for example, the old education authorities, do not do good work.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I hope the hon. Member does not hold me as having said the old ad hoc education authorities did not do good work. What I said was that there had been wide support for the view that there ought to he unity of financial control.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I agree, but I think the Noble Lady did suggest that there was a demand for complete control of finance. However, I do not want to pursue that particular point, because I know the Noble Lady does agree that although those bodies did not collect the money they expended it wisely and did good work. I hope these probation committees will also render good service. The control over expenditure which rests with my right hon. Friend will, I am sure, be wisely used by him, or by whoever may take his place in what I hope will be the far distant future. This is a new experiment, and I hope it will be success-
ful in keeping as many of our young people out of gaol as possible and expenditure on that object will be wise expenditure.

Sir J. GILMOUR: After the explanation we have received I do not desire to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, after the word "persons," to insert the words:
(of whom at least one shall be a woman).

This Amendment is moved in fulfilment of an undertaking which was given in Committee to consider a point raised by the Noble Lady the Member for West Perthshire (Duchess of Atholl) regarding the representation of women.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am glad to see the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment on the Paper, even though it has only come up at this eleventh hour. There was a serious disadvantage in the fact that under the Government's proposals a probation committee need not have included a woman. Difficult psychological questions arise in connection with this work, and it is absolutely essential that every probation committee should include a woman, just as women probation officers will be essential.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MATHERS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:
(c) to arrange for the periodical inspection of homes and institutions where persons on probation are received.
This new paragraph (c) is not intended to take the place of the present paragraph (c) in the Clause, but to be an additional paragraph. I am suggesting that this should be one of the duties of the probation committee in order that institutions which are deemed to be suitable for probationers shall be examined by the probation committee in order to make quite certain that the conditions are good enough and in keeping with what is considered to be desirable for probationers during their probationary period. I think I am right in supposing that if these institutions were carrying on this work for profit they would be subject to certain control as in the case of factories; but where the work is purely domestic, I do not think there is any
protection for the probationer in regard to the conditions under which the probationer may be called upon to work.
I know at the present time of certain institutions which primâ facie might be considered to be institutions where the probationer would normally be sent. Those probationers are not sent there by the probation officers because of the fact that they are denied the opportunity of getting to know the conditions prevailing inside those homes and institutions. I hope that the idea which is put forward in my Amendment may be accepted in order that those places may be inspected and the conditions ascertained by the committee. I know it has been urged that a wide provision of this kind might more appropriately be dealt with in a Children Act, In that respect it seems to me that those who make such a claim overlook the fact that probation extends, not only to children, but to adults. I hope the considerations which I have urged in support of this Amendment will commend it to the House.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is most important that the institutions to which the children are sent should maintain a high standard. It is extraordinary how small things influence children on probation. I will give one instance which I have come across in my experience. A boy was placed under a probation officer whom he refused to obey and treated with contempt. Trouble was taken to ascertain why the boy treated the officer with contempt, and it turned out that the officer was in the habit of putting his knife into his mouth, and for this reason the boy refused to pay any respect to the officer. That shows how very small things may influence these matters. I think all these institutions should be periodically inspected in order to ensure that the fullest value is being secured.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. I do not think that the probation officer should be given the power of periodical inspection of a home which has been selected by a competent judge. I should deprecate giving the officer a power of that kind, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 4.—(Selection of Probation Officers.)

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, to leave out from beginning to the word "shall," in line 2, and to insert instead thereof the words:
Where a court makes a probation order it may, as in its discretion it shall think fit, nominate a salaried or a voluntary probation officer, or a salaried and a voluntary probation officer to act jointly, and any salaried probation officer so nominated.
This is purely a consequential Amendment.

Mr. MATHERS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "or a salaried and a voluntary probation officer to act jointly."
I do not think that it is wise to divide the responsibility in this way, and there must be someone responsible for carrying out the probation officers' duties. I think that to divide the responsibility between two people is an impossible task to put upon them.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment to the proposed amendment is not seconded.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 4, line 5, leave out the word "was," and insert instead thereof the word "is."

In line 13, after the word "or," insert the word "for."

In line 14, leave out the word "a," and insert instead thereof the words:
as the salaried probation officer to act under the order either alone or jointly with a voluntary probation officer a salaried.

In line 15, leave out from the word "area" to the end of the Sub-section.—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

CLAUSE 5.—(Provision as to employment of certain persons as probation officers).

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 4, to leave out the words "connected with any," and to insert instead thereof the words:
or has at any time been a member of a.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should like to have a word of explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to this Amendment. I understand that it refers to the position
of an individual who may be a member of a police force, but I am not quite sure whether it does not go rather further than what we discussed in Committee. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain what is the reason for the change in the phraseology.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The effect of this Amendment is that Sub-section (3) of Clause 5 will read as follows:
It shall not be lawful to appoint as a salaried probation officer for any area or to nominate in a probation order as a voluntary probation officer a person who is or has at any time been a member of a police force.
That is to say, it would exclude not only the policeman but also the ex-policeman. That is the whole effect of the Amendment.

Mr. LOVAT FRASER: I should like to say how glad I am that the Secretary of State has adopted the point of view expressed in this Amendment. The Departmental Committee which reported in 1928 said definitely that the great weight of the evidence they had received was against any association of probation with the police force, and I am very glad to see the two things detached.

Major ELLIOT: It is quite true that there is a general feeling that it is desirable that no policeman or police pensioner should be a probation officer, but it may be found, when the matter is worked out, that this may rule out one or two people who might usefully have accepted such an appointment. The words
or has at any time been a member of a police force,
certainly go very wide. They would apply to a man who 20 years ago may have been for a month or six months a member of a police force, and that would exclude a large number of persons. [Interruption.] It may not be so in practice, but I simply want to call attention to the fact that the words are certainly very wide. Of course, all these matters are experimental, and we are willing to let it go at that, but it must be understood that all the provisions which we are making here may have repercussions that we do not exactly see at the present moment.

Mr. JAMES WELSH (Paisley): As one who has had a little experience in dealing with probation cases, I think that this Amendment goes a little further than may have been anticipated. I would point out to the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate that in Glasgow at present the probation officers are members of the police force, and some of these men who are attached to the divisions have shown themselves to be particularly well adapted to this work and have had long experience of it. I think it would be most unfortunate if the effect of this Clause were to rule out of consideration altogether men of that type. Theoretically there may be objections, as my hon. friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) has said, to employing police officers for this purpose, but there are exceptions to that rule, and I can say from considerable experience, in the course of the last year particularly, that some of these probation officers who are connected with the police force have shown themselves to be in every way capable and well adapted for this kind of work. Some of them take tremendous pains over the work, and I think it would be most unfortunate that anything should be said or done which would completely exclude men of that type from being considered when vacancies in these positions are being filled. I suggest to the Government that, if they left the matter to the discretion of the local authority and the probation committee, it would serve their purpose quite well, and I hope that there will be some reconsideration of this point.

Mrs. MANNING: I should like to ask if this Amendment would have the effect of excluding members of the women police who have had to leave the force on account of marriage?

The LORD ADVOCATE: This Bill does not draw any distinction between men police and women police. We felt that it would be invidious to draw any distinction in that matter, but that we were bound to carry out the principle of sex equality. Accordingly, it would apply to all who were connected with the police force. As regards the point mentioned by my hon. friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Welsh), we appreciate that this provision may mean here and there that a person who has been in the
police and who is qualified for this work could not be appointed, but we had to consider what was the best rule to lay down, and we came clearly to the conclusion that it was desirable that probation should be completely dissociated from police control and police influence in any shape or form.

Major ELLIOT: What is the position in the case of the special constable? Would all persons who have once acted as special constables be excluded?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I should think that a special constable could be described as a member of a police force, and that, therefore, he would be excluded, and I do not see any reason why he should not be.

Mr. MATHERS: I welcome this Amendment, which renders unnecessary the Amendment which I had put down—In page 5, line 4, after the word "is," to insert the words "or has been." In the case of the City of Glasgow, the system has been successful to a great extent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Welsh) has said, but in less congested areas, and certainly in country areas, anyone who has been connected with the police would be looked upon as very undesirable by those who are on probation. If regular visits were made by a police officer with a police connection, it would be commented upon very unfavourably in the neighbourhood, and would do harm.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to follow up the point which was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). I quite understand the undesirability of appointing for this work someone who is or has been a member of a regular police force, because I think it is inevitable that one who had spent some years in a police force would get to have a method of approach towards a young delinquent which is not quite the method of approach that is to be desired in cases of probation. But it seems to me that, if the Lord Advocate really abides by the definition he has just given, including within the prohibition anyone who has at any time been a special constable, it is carrying it very far. Special constables are not in any way regular constables. [Interruption.] They may have their share of human vices, as we all have, but do they necessarily have the peculiar
vices in the police force, such as they are, which we think inappropriate to a probation officer? Special constables are people in every walk of life and of every kind of experience, who do not have the opportunity of getting into a groove in regard to delinquency which sometimes we may associate with otherwise admirable members of the police force. I should like to ask the Government if they would not think over this point before the Bill reaches another place and endeavour to make it a little less far-reaching in its application.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Salaries and expenses.)

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, after the word "salaries" to insert the word "or."
This and the next five Amendments are drafting, consequential on the insertion of a new Sub-section in Clause 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made; In page 5, line 8, leave out the words "superannuation allowances or gratuities."—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, to leave out the words "or to their legal representatives."

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that these are all consequential on alterations that we have made in the first Clause, but I have not been able to find any reference to legal representatives. I do not query the necessity for cutting these words out, but I am a little anxious as to why, when the Government put this in the original Bill, it should be cut out at this time. I do not press the matter, but I could not understand why it had been taken out.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The explanation is quite simple. By the Amendment which the House has accepted to-day we have incorporated the provisions of the Local Government and other Officers Superannuation Act, 1922. Accordingly, as a matter of drafting, the words should not have been inserted.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I quite accept that, but, as I understood the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, the Superannuation Act did not operate in a great many cases, and, therefore, the in-
dividuals concerned, when they come to claim their rights, will, as I understand it, be debarred. I am anxious to see that no unfairness should be done to an individual who may have to bring a case for his own protection. It may be that, undr the rules to be made by the Secretary of State, there may be some method of dealing with the problem, but, obviously, if the fact that we are putting in the Act of 1922 is the reason why this is being dropped out, and equally that Act will not run in a great many cases, what is going to be the position of the private individual who has to take proceedings for recovery? I am only anxious that the point should be considered and, if necessary, some amendment may be made at a further stage of the Bill.

The LORD ADVOCATE: We will con-eider the point between now and the further stages of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 18, leave out the word "area," and insert instead thereof the word "areas."

In line 28, after the word "on," insert the word "A".

In line 28, leave out the word "under," and insert instead thereof the words "order containing."—[Mr. W. Adam-son.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Power to make rules.)

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 8, line 26, to leave out from the word "regulating" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words
any other expenditure of probation committees.

This Amendment, in so far as it leaves out part of paragraph (b), is consequential on the insertion in Clause 1 of the new Sub-section dealing with superannuation. The insertion of the proposed words is designed to meet the complaint that there is insufficient control over expenditure by probation committees and to enable the Secretary of State to make rules regulating such expenditure.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Bill arises out of a Committee appointed when I held office, and I am glad to think that we are hopeful of seeing the recommendations of that Committee put into operation. It is, of course, an experimental Measure. It will be watched with interest by a great number of people, and it may well be that as time proceeds certain alterations will have to be made in it, but as far as Scottish members are concerned, we are glad to think that the deficiency which has existed for some time in the working of probation in Scotland as compared with what it has been across the border has now been made good, and I hope it may be very successful in its operation.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I want to thank Members in all parts of the House for the assistance that we have had with the Bill. All sections of the House have taken considerable interest in it. As the right hon. Gentleman has already said, it is an experiment, and I believe, as he believes, that it will be for the benefit of that class of our young people who require the supervision for which provision is made in the Bill. It may be, as we continue to test its usefulness, that we may require to amend it in certain respects. I hope that the House will accept the Bill and give it the Third Reading.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to ask the Secretary of State, before the Bill is produced in another place, to give attention to a point, which, I am sorry to say, has only lately struck me in regard to Clause 6. Sub-section (1) of that Clause requires the expenses of probation officers, failing agreement between authorities forming a joint area, to be determined according to the rateable valuation in the valuation roll of the respective areas of the local authorities. It seems to me that the amount of work reasonably to be expected in the several areas should have been taken into account and that it is hardly fair to base it entirely upon the rateable valuation, more especially as the amount of work in one part of a joint area may be rather more than in another part. It appears to be inevitable that we shall have a great linking up in Scotland of county areas with burghs, which are regarded technically as large burghs, even though they are not necessarily very large ones. I do not
wish to do the burghs an injustice, but I should think that it would be found that there were many more cases of juvenile delinquency in the burghs than in the rural areas. I do not wish to hold up the young people in rural areas as models in everything, but undoubtedly they do not find their way to the police courts as often as some of the young people in the burghs.
I have been able to make a comparison showing the considerable difference in the number of cases put upon probation in a burgh as compared with the surrounding county. In the case of a burgh with a population of about 30,000, in the years between 1925 and 1930, there were 311 cases put on probation by the burgh police court and the sheriff court, and in the same period, in a county with a population of 90,000, there were 62 cases, which is less than one-fifth of the cases in the burgh. These are areas which will very likely be combined in a joint area, and, if there is no agreement as to allocation of expenses, undoubtedly a heavy share of the expense will come upon the rural part, which is not likely to supply as many cases. It is very important, if this Bill is to be a success, that local authorities should combine and work harmoniously together and be interested in the work, and I ask the Secretary of State to give the matter his consideration before the Bill reaches another place and see whether some account cannot be taken in the allocation of expenses of the amount of work which is reasonably to be expected in the several areas, having regard to the number of cases coming before the police court in those areas in the past.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I think that there will be no difficulty in dealing with this problem. I am very hopeful that the expenditure in connection with this new experiment will not be very large. While it is true that you may have a larger number of delinquents from the burgh area than from the rural area, it is equally true to say that, under the de-rating scheme, the rural area will have very little to pay, even if it is based upon the valuation pointed out by the noble Lady. If the principles contained in the Measure—and they represent the aims and objects of all who have helped to frame it—are to be a success, that success can only be achieved by two means. First of all, by getting efficient, able and enthusiastic
probation officers to carry through the work under the scheme of probation, and, secondly, by getting upon the probation committee individuals who will take great interest in, and give careful attention to, what is one of the greatest problems in dealing with youthful delinquents. If we can get close association between probation officers and the committees which will have to create the active interest and supervise the work, I feel sure that the work of Parliament in framing this particular Bill will meet with success by improving the conditions as far as young offenders are concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. H. Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is not controversial, and the only three parties interested will be the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and the Humber Conservancy. Under the powers of the North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Act, 1912, the Admiralty constructed a pier or jetty at that place, to be used in connection with the transfer of oil fuel to and from the Naval Oil Fuel Installation. Statutory authority was necessary because the Humber Conservancy Board have no power to sanction works to be constructed beyond certain limits known as "River Lines." In 1916 it was found necessary to moor two hulks—one at each end of the "T" head of the pier—in order to accommodate the type of vessels using the pier and generally to facilitate berthing operations. These particular hulks reached the end of their life in 1921 when they were replaced by those at present in position. The condition of these hulks, which are partly filled with concrete, is now such that it is imperative that they should be removed without any avoidable delay. It is therefore proposed to replace them by dolphins connected by gangways to the existing pier, and for she execution of this work and certain other strengthening work to the pier statutory authority is required as was the case in 1912.
Clause 1 of the Bill describes the works to be executed. Clause 2 has been inserted to meet the views of the Humber Conservancy with regard to the lighting of the pier and dolphins, and the removal of the structures in certain eventualities, and the Clause has been accepted by them and the Board of Trade as satisfactory. Clause 3 applies certain provisions of the Act of 1912 to the present proposals. It enables the Admiralty to acquire easements for the work, to deviate from the lines and levels shown on the deposited plans within the limits of deviation shown on those plans, to dredge, etc., the bed, shores and channel of the River Humber adjoining or near the pier or dolphins, provides a penalty to be imposed on anyone obstructing the execution of the work, states a period within which the work must be completed, and also saves the powers of the Humber Conservancy Board under their Acts, 1862 to 1907. The number of men
to be employed will be approximately 30, and the time to be taken will be from 9 to 12 months.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved, "That it is expedient that the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes before Two o'clock until Monday next, 8th June.